Luke Reusser
Critical Writing Seminar
Due 2/6/2002
Bierman, P.R., et.al. 2002. Contrasting rates and scales of sediment production and
sediment yield in semi-arid terrain. For submission to Nature.
Using data collected from in-situ produced 10Be from alluvial sediment etc.,
Paul’s paper investigates the convoluted balance between sediment generation and
sediment yield within the semi-arid drainage network of the Rio Puerco Basin in northern
NM. The Rio Puerco was selected for this study because semi-arid regions have some of
the highest sediment yields in the world and because rapid population growth within the
basin may require the implementation of land-management strategies. The data
demonstrate that in-situ produced 10Be can be a useful monitor of sediment generation in
both small and large basins, and that the basin is lowering at an average of 100m/My.
Disparity between sediment generation rates and sediment yield indicate that the basin is
not in equilibrium over human timescales, but that a balance is reached through the
repeated cutting and filling of arroyos over longer time scales (Holocene).
(I believe that this is the material you presented at the GSA annual meeting poster
session and it is nice to get the whole picture) I find this to be a well organized, easy to
read and informative paper. The study investigates complex and current surficial process
questions as well as eludes to potential anthropogenic influences. Its conclusions could
therefore be potentially useful in future land-management strategies. I found the figures
to be clearly presented and well described, and the interpretations to be logical and
understandable. Although I am aware of the length constraints for articles submitted to
Nature, I think more emphasis on, or explanation of anthropogenic influence would
benefit the piece. Maybe a sentence in the last paragraph related to the statement that
‘any regulatory framework…should consider natural, time-dependent changes in
sediment concentration.’
I recommend this paper for publication in Nature with a few minor revisions. As
mentioned above, I think the paper would benefit from simple recommendations for
future land-management strategies, as well as further explanation of some of the methods
and calculations (ie. DEM-generated hypsometry?). I fully understand that length is the
limiting reagent and if something more is added, something else must be taken away. So
maybe this is not possible. These are just my opinions as a reader. On a grammatical
note, I like semi-colons too, but some sentences would be much smoother if broken up.
There are also several formatting issues. According to Nature’s guide to authors, the
summary should be unreferenced…yours has reference #’s. The sequence should be:
title, text, methods, references, acknowledgments, tables, figure legends, figures. The
order currently is: title, text, figure captions, references, figures, tables. Nature also
suggests to separate the text with several short headings. This paper seems to flow quite
well with out them, but maybe it would make the editors smile a bit more if they were
there.
Specific comments keyed to numbers in the manuscript margin:
1) This sentence could easily be divided in half without many more words and I think it
would read better that way.
2) I don’t think I understand the gist of this sentence, especially the second half. Unless
you think it is imperative to the article, you could maybe cut it and make room for
other stuff.
3) I don’t think Nature says anything about active or passive writing styles, but this is an
example of both. Don’t know if you want to stick with one or if both are fine.
4) This is an example of a section that could maybe use one more sentence of
explanation for those who don’t know what any of this means.
5) Minor point…the My –1, the 1 got cut off and is on the following line. It will
probably be corrected when formatted for publication though.
6) This makes perfect sense but I don’t know if it is grammatically correct. Maybe just
put the last clause is parentheses.
7) This last sentence is a mouth full and I think the word ‘should’ or ‘needs to’ is
missing from in front of ‘…regulatory framework…’ This is also the first time you
have used the phrase ‘water turbidity.’ Maybe the last sentence shouldn’t contain
new terms? I also think that a quick sentence mentioning an example of a regulatory
framework that is based on this conclusion would clarify what you are saying.
Maybe there is no room.